Who Is Sullivan's Fault In The New York Times Trial?

According to CNN, in March 1960, the known newspaper "New York Times" published the non-commercial announcement under the heading "Heed Their Rising Voices". The announcement was signed by activists "Committee on Martin Luther King's protection and on a fight for freedom in the south" – Black priests, cultural figures (Harry Belafonte, Marlon Brando, etc.), the U.S. President's widow Eleonora Roosevelt, other public figures of that time.

In the ad, the "New York Times" told about what was happening in the South of the U.S: the infringement of the black population’s rights by the authorities, and, also, there was a calling to put an end to such practice. In particular, it stated the events in the city of Montgomery (Alabama), that the local

Sullivan and obliged the newspaper to pay him 1 million US dollars. This was primarily due to the testimony of six witnesses, according to which article really created the impression of Sullivan’s fault. However, interestingly enough, Sullivan’s name and position were never mentioned in the ad.

At the trial, it turned out that some of the things in the ad were not true. For example, the ad said that the police arrested Martin Luther king, a known fighter for the rights of blacks, seven times, in fact, he was arrested four times; that students were forced to starve, by hanging a padlock on the door of the dining room, in fact, it was not true. It was said that many student leaders who fought against segregation of blacks were expelled from College for political activity while only nine people were expelled, but not for organizing demonstrations – for academic failure.

The ”New York Times", of course, was concerned about the decision of the court. They appealed to the Supreme Court of the U.S. Five out of nine Supreme court judges, agreed with the draft decision, which was written by chief justice William Brennan.

The claim of the "New York Times" was satisfied. This solution contains four key

If courts punish for the content of materials about such important issues was not absolutely true, it will produce the effect of self-censorship for editors and journalists. Being afraid to make a mistake in the details, they would be likely to skip talking about important social issues. But if such discussions cannot avoid mistakes, including the criticism of the authorities, so it needs Constitutional protection – protection of the First Amendment. “ That erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected in the freedoms of expression are to have the ‘breathing space’ that they ‘need to survive’.” If we recognize the need for constitutional guarantees, then, questions of defamation of the media, should be administered exclusively by Federal authorities, and the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, it is impossible to pass laws and decisions at the state level, which would define what group of people and officials have the ability to protect themselves from the media and what is